MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007173800 · doi:10.5555/2132325.2132460

Debugging with dominance: on-the-fly RTL debug solution implications

2011· article· en· W2007173800 on OpenAlexaff
Hratch Mangassarian, Andreas Veneris, Duncan Smith, Sean Safarpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsVennsa Technologies (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebuggingAlgorithmic program debuggingComputer scienceBottleneckRobustness (evolution)Very-large-scale integrationDominance (genetics)Parallel computingComputer engineeringEmbedded systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design debugging has become a resource-intensive bottleneck in modern VLSI CAD flows, consuming as much as 60% of the total verification effort. With typical design sizes exceeding the half-million synthesized gates mark, the growing number of blocks to be examined dramatically slows down the debugging process. The aim of this work is to prune the number of debugging iterations for finding all potential bugs, without affecting the debugging resolution. This is achieved by using structural dominance relationships between circuit components. More specifically, an iterative fixpoint algorithm is presented for finding dominance relationships between multiple-output blocks of the design. These relationships are then leveraged for the early discovery of potential bugs, along with their corrections, resulting in significant debugging speed-ups. Extensive experiments on real industrial designs show that 66 % of solutions are discovered early due to dominator implications. This results in consistent performance gains in all cases and a 1.7x overall speed-up for finding all potential bugs, demonstrating the robustness and practicality of the proposed approach. 1.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207